They have begun transferring some detainees out of them, back into Guantanamo custody.
quote:The announcement from Bush is the first time the administration has acknowledged the existence of CIA prisons, which have been a source of friction between Washington and some allies in Europe. The administration has come under criticism for its treatment of terrorism detainees. European Union lawmakers said the CIA was conducting clandestine flights in Europe to take terror suspects to countries where they could face torture.
posted
Wow! Khalid Sheik Mohammed. That man has been 'disappeared' for a good long time.
It's funny to think. The people being transferred are perfect examples of the 'human beings in cold storage' I mentioned over the issue of tribunal.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it better to secretly violate someone's human rights, or to publicly announce it and claim it's right?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really see how moving these prisoners to Gitmo is going to address the criticisms. Bush has said that all US war captives will receive treatment prescribed under the Geneva convention, but that hasn't really been the modus operandi for Gitmo yet either. The military tribunals haven't been declared legally sufficient either. I understand that Congress is trying to ram through some special powers for the President (including the go-ahead for warrantless eavesdropping a la the NSA program), but I don't really see that happening quickly either -- there are too many competing bills in the Senate right now and people ARE starting to grouse about why the NSA program should be different than regular FISA requirements.
Anyway, back on topic, I would like to see a reporter ask the President "what has changed?" If it was okay and justifiable to make prisoners disappear before, why are we stopping? Or, are we just stopping for these folks, and just for now? Do you reserve the right to make prisoners disappear if it seems necessary to you in the future?
posted
I don't think moving the prisoners will justify the criticisms at all. But I think it move the discussion back to "How civilized of treatment do the detainees deserve?" to which the average American's answer seems to be "Not very much," rather than the cycle it's been on, which is "How much of our attention and money does Iraq deserve?" to which the average American's answer is also "Not very much."
In other words, I think there's a chance Bush is cognizantly moving the topic of media discussion to one he thinks the average American better agrees with him on, since it's right before a really major election cycle.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The disappearing of these people was very good for Homeland Security. It was very bad for America. It seems to me that the President is more interested in saving American lives than in upholding the Constitution. Unfortunatly, it was to uphold the Constitution that he was sworn to do, twice.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great. Another lie ("Oh, no. We don't have any secret prisons.") that Bush and his administration won't get called on because the conservative press and pundits will outshout anyone who tries to hold the administration accountable for its actions. Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude: Great. Another lie ("Oh, no. We don't have any secret prisons.") that Bush and his administration won't get called on because the conservative press and pundits will outshout anyone who tries to hold the administration accountable for its actions.
You know what's sad? I'm liberal, and the first thought I had upon reading this was, "Everyone knows the press is liberal."
I think everybody should keep track of the number of times they hear "liberal press" and make sure to use the words "conservative press" an equal number of times.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on what part of the media you're talking about.
Print media, radio media, television media, they are separate spheres. Radio media is overwhelmingly conservative. I think television media is conservative slanted, but there's still some liberals about. Print media is either even or liberal slanted.
But look at where the majority of Americans get their information from. It isn't newspapers.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read today (Washington Post article on the new guidelines on prisoner treatment) that the secret CIA prisons will remain in operation. It's just that some high-profile detainees are being transfered into the comparative light of day offered at Guantanamo.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush maintains that the methods used in the CIA prisons were tough, but humane. He also maintains that the information obtained from prisoners helped avert more terrorist attacks.
Assuming that's true-- are these prisons worth it?
I hate the idea of these prisons not because of what's going on there now-- you can't force me to shed sympathy for Bin Laden's crew of murderers-- but for what they could develop into. I don't trust politicians to be moderate, either now, or in the future; I don't trust that bureacrats understand what are appropriate measures.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I also dislike that by mistreating prisoners we may increase the likelihood of our own troops being mistreated.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also dislike that by mistreating prisoners we may increase the likelihood of our own troops being mistreated.
Well, any American soldier taken captive by our enemies now is very likely to be mistreated, no matter what our interrogators do. So I don't think it's a valid concern for this war. It IS a concern for the future.
The problem with this is that Bush and Co want the American people to trust them that the secret prisons are worth the "violations;" that they have been effective in ferreting out and preventing major terrorist plots. But I DON'T trust them; beginning with the lack of a plan for withdrawal from Iraq, I've lost faith in this administration.
For an authoritarian guy like me, this is a big deal.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bah, we didn't have a plan for getting into Iraq. We didn't have a plan for what to do once in Iraq. Why do we need a plan for getting out of Iraq?
American values as put down in the Declaration if Independence and the Constitution revolve around the idea that each and every person deserves respect.
These are not the ideals of fanatical Islam as demonstrated by these thugs in captivity. They only respect fear, violence, and threat.
Yet one of the strongest results of these "secret prisons" and "disappearances" is to try and speak to these thugs in their language, to forcibly administer fear, violence, and threat.
Which means we become more like the terrorists than like Americans.
And that is just sad, very very sad.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bah, we didn't have a plan for getting into Iraq. We didn't have a plan for what to do once in Iraq.
Actually, we did. Clinton and Bush BOTH had plans for getting into Iraq, for overthrowing Sadaam-- that's why the invasion went so well. That's why Bush II was able to declare victory on that battleship so soon after the invasion.
But from all accounts (or at least the ones I've heard on NPR) Rumsfield, Bush, and Company were completely unprepared for such a long lived insurgency. They honestly expected Iraqis to welcome us in, adopt our culture and (perhaps) give us the oil we "needed."
quote:Which means we become more like the terrorists than like Americans.
Mmm... I reject this stance for symantic reasons having to do with the word 'terrorist.' Your point is understood, though.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This entire thing highlights why I'm not a fan of the Bush Administration.
For someone purporting-or at the very least, letting others purport for him-to be a conservative, he sure seems to be saying, "It's humane/lawful/justified, trust me!" a whole lot.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude: ...Bush and his administration won't get called on because the conservative press and pundits will outshout anyone who tries to hold the administration accountable for its actions.
Um...Bush and his administration have *already* been called on this, as the links above show.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They have been called on it. It is early September.
Those who are in the process of "calling" them on it will soon be labeled, "Liberal whimps who want to go easy on the terrorists who planned 9/11."
So when Democrats start arguing against some of the illegal, unconstitutional, or merely questionable steps the President has taken to fight terrorism, the Republicans can set up a false choice of "You are soft on terrorists or you agree with us."
[rant on] I'm still waiting for the term for Terrorist Sympathiser that is more of a news-bite. You know, like Commie or Pinko.
How about Terro? Terror-lover? Muslim? oh, oh, I know--Patriot.
I would give my life, and almost everything else to save my homeland, but I would give up my homeland to save America and the ideals from which it has sprung. [/rant]
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fun factoid: 'the median sentence length given to a terrorist has fallen since 9/11? In fact, it's fallen by a lot, from 41 months of prison time to just 20 days of prison time.'
Those darn terrorists, we catch a bunch of them then let most of them out after 20 days. This is what comes of defining terrorism more broadly, we start pursuing cases its not worth it to pursue even if we get a conviction.
MR is an excellent blog, btw, mainly for economics, but usually fairly readable. Be warned that some of the discussion may be esoteric, and that it may sometimes seem someone is saying something grossly wrong when they're just being precise and using specialized vocabulary.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: (1) Act of international terrorism: The term `act of international terrorism' means an act--
(A) which is violent or dangerous to human life and that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State; and
(B) which appears to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.
As defined by the US in the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996. Now, I think governments are allowed to do a lot of things that we as citizens can't. We can't personally imprison people, we can't execute people, we can't try people ourselves. But there are supposed to be laws that even the government can't get around.
I think Bush using the term "Alternative forms of interrogation," but claiming it still isn't "torture" is way too vague for a President facing the sorts of accusations that he is, and for someone that keeps telling us one thing, only to reveal the truth weeks later.
Gut feeling: He's full of crap. "Alternative forms of interrogation," DOES mean torture, maybe not electroshock therapy or something brutal, but it's still torture. I feel like I'm watching an episode of '24' unfold on a national stage.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, I am proud of you. You are exactly right. As Americans we don't have centuries of shared culture or history. All we have that binds us together as a country is our belief in a set of ideals. The farther we get from those ideals the more meaningless being an American becomes.
(Not to say other countries don't have those ideals as well, but with the US it is really almost all that we have. That and maybe jazz.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Um...Bush and his administration have *already* been called on this, as the links above show.
Yeah, but no one will have any idea of that in a couple of weeks. Because the conservative press and pundits will scream and scream and scream that anyone who doesn't toe the Bush line is "soft on terrorism". So the conversation will soon go from, well, Bush lied...again...to, it's all right because Bush says it's all right.
Some people still believe that Al Gore claimed that he "invented the internet" because conservatives have persisted in repeating that chestnut ad infinitum, long after it was shown that that isn't what he said and isn't what he meant. Same principle.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
